Browse Our Articles & Podcasts

A Plea Against an Unprincipled Papalism

(Image: St Peter Enthroned with Saints; Cima da Conegliano; 15th century)

Editor’s note: The following is a guest essay from Dr. Markus Büning. Dr. Büning was born 1966 in Ahaus (Westfalen, Germany). He studied Catholic Theology and Philosophy in Münster and München. After graduating in 1990, he studied Law in Konstanz and Münster. He received his doctorate in Law in 2001 from the University of Münster. Among other things, he has worked as Academic Assistant at the Universities of Münster and Konstanz; as an administrative lawyer in several departments; and finally as the representative of the Mayor of Gronau (Westfalen). He has authored a number of books, with a recent focus on theological books concerning the lives of the Saints. In addition, he offers theological guided tours of several museums. Dr. Markus Büning is married and has two children. He lives with his family in Münsterland.

We invite — with the author’s encouragement — any who would like to reprint this interview to do so with attribution. 

In recent days, Dean Pinto of the Roman Rota has “raged” repeatedly and somewhat loudly against the four courageous cardinals who – after a longer waiting period – saw themselves urged to make available to the world public their own dubia concerning Amoris Laetitia (=AL), doubts which they had first presented only privately to the pope and to which he decided not to answer. The Roman Dean now sees in the cardinals’ conduct a form of insolence and a very inappropriate form of behavior toward the Vicar of Christ on earth. Then there is even his added talk about the life history of one of the carriers of doubt – here Cardinal Meisner is meant – over which there now purportedly lies a “shadow.” It is obvious now that the Roman Dean does not thus know the carefully defined relationship between conscience and obedience toward the ecclesial authority as it is grounded in Tradition. Pinto seems to be a representative of an unconditional obedience and of the disquieting papalism inherently connected with it.

As a theologian who has especially studied now for several years the lives of the Saints and their significance for our current time, I see it now to be more than fitting to turn our attention to two members of the “endless choir” [title of a book in German] who are able to correct with clarity the view of the canon lawyer Pinto: Joan of Orléans (1412-1431) and John Henry Newman (1801-1890). These radiant examples convey to us clearly and distinctly that the conscience – meant here is of course the well-formed conscience which is oriented toward God’s Commandments – has always priority. In addition, these two figures show us that a papalism of any kind is not at all Catholic. The pope is not the center of the Church. No, he is the “Servant of the Servants of God.” It is especially he who is – in the exercise of his service to the Universal Church – thus duty-bound to the unconditional validity of the Divine Law. Should he come not to have this duty any more clearly and distinctly in his mind, the Christians who see it in their consciences clearly and distinctly may then of course remind the pope of his duty. And our four courageous cardinals have done nothing else but that.

Let us now first look at Blessed John Henry Newman. He converted in 1845 at the age of 44 years for reasons of conscience, converting from Anglicanism to the Roman Catholic Church. This step must not have been easy for this Anglican priest who was deeply rooted in the Anglican tradition. But he recognized with the help of his theological research that the true Church of Christ can only be the Roman Catholic Church. What, then, can we learn from John Henry Newman? Especially the courage to make a conscientious decision! Famous and much-quoted is a passage from his “Letter to the Duke of Norfolk” (1874) in which he stresses the primacy of conscience: “If I … would have to make a toast to religion, I would drink to the pope. But first, I would drink to the individual conscience. Only then to the pope.” This famous toast of Newman first seems to us more unusual than it sounds; because it speaks – as Karl Rahner, S.J. himself has stressed – merely about “what is absolutely self-evident.” As Rahner said in September 1978 in Freiburg at the end of the first international Newman Conference held on German ground: “The Catholic Christian will say: ‘From the deepest life decision of conscience I accept and acknowledge this objective doctrinal authority of the Catholic Church as an external, but meaningful, and necessary, God-willed standard for my conscience; the recognition of this objective standard, however, is of course once again my own decision of conscience, which I make on my own account and at my own risk.’ You cannot, so to speak, hand over and deliver your conscience to someone else.” This is the decisive point: the love for the pope does not at all demand such an unconditional submission. This is not possible because God has already given to all of us a dignity which enables us to go the path of “acknowledgment” as described by Rahner. Here, we do justly speak of the right to the liberty of a well-formed conscience. In this hour of the Church, may Pope Francis listen to his Jesuit confrère, Rahner, and thus respect the decision of a well-formed conscience of the four cardinals.

No other than the now-retired Pope Benedict XVI has written as a young council theologian exactly in this sense when he commented on number 16 of the Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes. Before hearing Ratzinger’s commentary, however, the Second Vatican Council itself shall speak: “In the depths of his conscience, man detects a law which he does not impose upon himself, but which holds him to obedience. Always summoning him to love good and avoid evil, the voice of conscience, when necessary, speaks to his heart: do this, shun that. For man has in his heart a law written by God Himself; to obey it is the very dignity of man; according to it he will be judged.” The debate concerning AL is exactly about this very defense of that Divine Law which is written into our hearts. Joseph Ratzinger later then commented on this wonderful Council text, as follows, and in a very elucidating way – with preceding explicit reference to the teaching on conscience of a John Henry Newman: “Above the pope as the expression of the binding authority of the Church still stands one’s own conscience which has to be obeyed first – if need be also against the demand of the ecclesial authority.” If need be also against the demand of the ecclesial authority! Listen! Listen! And such a case of emergency is what the four cardinals currently seem to have detected. They see the danger that the Church’s teaching on the indissolubility and sacramentality of marriage has been watered down by the pope in AL. They do not see, after all, any room for a situation ethics, however defined. No, for these men the Commandment of God stands unshakable: “Thou shalt not commit adultery!” In their own formation of conscience, these men have clearly and distinctly accepted this Commandment.  Exactly that is why they speak now thus. Against this act, Msgr. Pinto cannot, yes may not, object. If he does, he does not stand any more on the foundation of Catholic teaching concerning the conscience of man. He also does not have the right to oppress the conscience of the faithful. By no stretch of the imagination can I imagine that, in the whole Catholic world, there are only these four cardinals who have made such a well-formed decision of conscience. May each shepherd now arise who is being sincerely led by his well-formed conscience in this manner.

Let us finally take a look upon a figure who can speak to us especially now: St. Joan of Orléans. This holy virgin was condemned by a spiritual tribunal – by priests and prelates – to suffer the terrible death by burning because she had listened to “her voices.” Joan lived very intimately for years with certain Saints (especially St. Michael the Archangel and St. Catherine of Alexandria) and heard their voices. These voices determined her decisions of conscience. At the end, she was considered to be crazy, and she is an impressive example for how much the exercised authority of the Church also can err. Only centuries later, the great Pope Benedict XV effected the rehabilitation of St. Joan in front of the eyes of the world, that is, by canonizing her in the year of 1920. This saint was questioned with all kinds of trick questions by her judges at the [earlier 1431] hearing. One of them was about the papacy. It was the time of the Council of Constance, the time of the popes and the anti-popes. The Church was in a terrible state. Camps and splits were threatening everywhere. Thus she was asked whom she considers to be the legitimate pope. Let us shortly listen to the interrogation: “Interrogator: ‘What do you say about our Lord  Pope, and of whom do you believe that he is the true pope?’ Answers Joan: ‘Are there then two? [….] I myself assume and believe that we have to obey our pope who is in Rome.’” This exchange is of much value for us today, and for many reasons. Joan did not live at the time of television, radio and the Internet. She most probably did not know what the concrete name of the pope was and how he looked.  Most probably, she had not the slightest idea of how turbulent things were in the Church of her time. But one thing she knew: he who sits on the Roman Episcopal Seat must be the lawful pope. What does this mean to us? We do not constantly have to check what the pope now says in his interviews and speeches. St. Joan’s example encourages us to be more unperturbed, also with regard to the current discussion about AL. It is sufficient to know that God takes care of His Church and that, until the day of His return, He has chosen the Bishop of Rome as His own Vicar. And we do have the duty to obey him, of course, but not unconditionally. We all are duty-bound to orient our conscience according to God’s Law and then to follow our thus-formed conscience. Let us turn our gaze again more toward Jesus Christ. Let us look at Him. Let us look, together with our Holy Father, to Christ and let us pray insistently that the Church in her entirety may clearly and distinctly take heed of the binding Law of God.

(Translated by Maike Hickson)

94 thoughts on “A Plea Against an Unprincipled Papalism”

    • Lol!

      When I was in the seminary, many many years ago, I was told the story of an elderly monk who used to climb to the top of the Archabbey, look out, with arms wide open, and declare that all the land as far as one could see was ” mine all mine” .

      The understanding of course was that he had become quite mentally disturbed. I think there might just be a bit of a correlation here!!

  1. Whereas formerly, whenever the media used the phrase ‘The Pope has said…’, I would pay eager attention, now when those same words are used, I just want to cover my ears. The current regime occupying the Vatican truly has put the ‘bile’ in papabile.

  2. One need wonder if this superior contribution is not missing the mark a bit letting go unmentioned what is increasingly obvious. We are not only being fed bad reflection on the issue at hand, but it is being served up with deceit.
    Pope Bergoglio and those who encourage, endorse and support his poorly veiled fraudulent perspective know full well the constraints on papal authority, and on the faithful’s proper responsibility to resist when he exercises his authority improperly. Yet the perpetrators insist that the manipulation of dogma, doctrine and the faithful is protected and insured by papal authority. So we have here not merely an “understandable” difference of opinion on pastoral practice, but an erroneous exercise of papal authority – an abuse of power.
    To go further, this abuse of power is played by proxies with threats, with a sanctimonious superiority complex posing as competency, and even more egregiously as fidelity to the Magisterium of the Church.
    This entire episode could be brought to a productive conclusion with the clarification by the Holy Father of his perspective; that is if it is supportive of the Magisterium. If it is not supportive, it will provide him the opportunity to absent himself from an office for which he is not suited. Such a conclusion would serve to magnify that it is Holy Scripture, the Apostolic Tradition and the Magisterium which all Catholics are required to uphold, not uber-papalism and speculative cognitive meanderings offered as “theological reflection.”
    Just answer the “dubia.”
    Toxic opportunistic cowards won’t do to lead the faithful.

    • Right on, James. This is the best comment on this thread.

      We can debate and discuss Rahner, Vatican 2, etc, but the issues at stake now are not unclear nor are they demanding of much discussion. They are clear and they demand action, not discussion. More dialogue be damned.

      And what else is clear is the utter duplicity of the Pope, the Church hierarchy that supports him and, bear with me, for any “outsider” AKA non-Catholic who is watching this whole disgusting process, the Church Herself. How is this method even Christian by ANY definition of the term?

      Due to my status as a recent {4 years old} convert and closeness to many friends and family who are Protestants, I can tell you that the Catholic Church is not only NOT taken seriously outside the fold but She is seen by many {or nearly all?} as the butthole of joke and the epitome of folly. WE inside the Church can see Her with a different perspective…but can we expect that from those who only see the lies, the duplicity and the fraud of Her current leadership and the culture that surrounds them?

      We can proclaim that “Church teaching doesn’t change” till we are blue in the face but the man on the street can hear that and laugh and point to the ridiculous annulment process that has become nothing less than simple, virtually on-demand Catholic divorce…and done with dishonest fraud as well! Gutless to simply curse God and deny the doctrines, our leadership sets up frauds that get the job done while affirming allegiance to “paper doctrines” that sit somewhere forgotten collecting dust like the Law in the temple of old. Ditto our gagging and continuous references to the “dignity” of homosexuals and the denial of the death penalty….when Pope Pius V combined them both in the call to have priest sodomites handed over to the civil authorities TO BE EXECUTED. My how things HAVE changed.

      We see Vatican 2 and so many rally around to parse and shuck and jive and declare the documents “orthodox” while those documents have been used quite consistently {and easily!!!} to diminish ancient Church teaching and hardly to support it. More fraud! At some point a big heavy block of steel ceases being a big heavy block of steel by its use and becomes…a hammer…and to continue to call that thing a big heavy block of steel becomes absurd. How is calling Vatican 2 documents “orthodox teaching” any different?

      MANY outside the Church look at what She has become in their eyes and for good reason…the protector of criminals and murderers, hider of pedophiles and sodomite abusers, denier of marriage sanctity, importer of terrorists for cold cash, supporter of communism and brutal socialist regimes, ally of faggot-run fake-bishop led “Lutheran” social clubs, a worldwide {well, some Sundays…} gathering of Biblically-ignorant, coarse, cynical, shameless, shocked-by-nothing “faithful” and they say “This is the Catholic Church” and it is VERY, VERY hard to deny each and every such description.

      Yet I meet Catholic after Catholic almost in the shadows who is just heartsick at the reality that faces them. A Church possessing but afraid to use the tools Christ handed to Her. Indeed, it has become reality that “extra eccelsiam nula salus” just might BE rightly “abandoned” as “Pope” {whatever he is…} Benedict/Ratzinger said because how could God expect ANYONE who inclines toward Him to WANT to convert to what this thing has become??? Now THERE is a question worthy of debate! The “dubia”? Hardly. Indeed, how does a guy like me tell my family and friends to walk into any-ole local branch of the supposedly-“Universal” {Catholic} Church and expect them to get anything LIKE what was taught half a lifetime ago? NO, I have to make call after call and screen the local parishes and sometimes can’t even find one I’m sure won’t be a friggin rat’s nest of queer-favoring, marriage-disparaging, glad-handing doctrinal-simpletons screeching out godless and wretched 40-year-old campfire ditties while all 14 of them mark time until the Grim Reaper sweeps them and their building into the gutter of history!

      We have a truly disgusting rogue running the Church at present, a rogue who is a vocation-destroyer from a long way back and doctrine annihilator at present.

      But praise God for Him. YES, praise GOD for him!! For I HOPE and pray that by his manifest errors and just plain raunchy and scummy attitude enough fat, lazy, comfort-seeking so-called “orthodox” prelates will be poked in the eye deep enough to flinch and just maybe, by a miracle of God Himself, drag themselves up on their pasty feet to say “Enough is enough”.

      Because I KNOW they would, if they did, have an Army of True Believers that would be willing to take the Standard of Christ and fly it in every corner of the globe. Not maybe a LARGE Army, but then Jesus only needed 12, and I am dead sure that today there are more than 12 Catholic men and women who are willing to stand up for Jesus Christ and His Church.

      So Burke, Meisner, Sarah, Caffara, Schneider, Wrobel, Brandmüller.

      We are waiting, if not patiently, at least waiting.

      • Fantastic piece of writing,and so,so very true!My sentiments entirely my friend.Where is the masculinity in any of these fat prelates who ought to be teaching the Truths of The Faith?They ,with exception, are traitors and heretics in The Church they have infiltrated with their homo loving,all you need is love ,anything goes baloney.Give us a smaller Church and let us kick the Devils out!

        • Thank you! Don’t know if you’ve checked them out, but you (all) may be interested in Michael Voris definitely supports the restoration of genuine masculinity, ESPECIALLY to the Church!!!

      • I am humbled by your kind assessment and by your incredible honesty, your
        fearless and righteous rage. While there might be a nuance I would bring to
        your analysis (annulment process, sexual scandals) I do not disagree with what you put forth.
        You bring a raking light to almost sixty years of fraudulence, disservice, and fantasy. Of course this includes the pontificates of Pope Saint John Paul and Pope Benedict whom many of us hold in veneration and regard. But with the current abhorrence we now shoulder the consequence of their terribly inadequate analysis of the theological and ecclesial situation has become quite clear. There needed to be a ruthless house cleaning which they were loath to pursue. Why? I believe they thought a prudent intervention would accomplish its purpose with less wreckage, but that has clearly been shown to be untrue. I knew it while I was living through it, but I thought “what do I know?” Apparently more than I realized. And this might be the strength of the laity. Those who sincerely attempt to be faithful, who care enough to avoid fantasy, and care enough to keep informed, can see more clearly than those submerged in the mire of the theological clerical complex.
        Your unflinching assessment of ecumenical realities is refreshing and absolutely on target. The duplicitous enterprise termed “ecumenical affairs,” has been an exercise in both futility and self-destruction. Protestant communities have no interest at all in unity with Roman Catholicism. They hold us in contempt at best, but tragically far more frequently we are termed a joke. They have no interest in us beyond the deconstruction of Roman Catholicism with the concurrent justification of their own historical aberrance – theological and moral. Many Catholics engaged in this endeavor share that goal – including the current cadre in the Vatican. Having myself spent ten years working in a trans-denominational seminary of international repute, be assured this is the ecumenical reality.
        Believe me, I share your pain. But don’t let this tank you. This phase of the Church’s journey through history, though like unto a holocaust at the hands of our own, will find its corrective – eventually – the sooner if we don’t jump ship. Implore the Blessed Virgin and keep your eyes on Christ. God reward you.

        • Ecumenism! You are right, right, right!

          My father, the most moral and decent man I have ever known was, theologically, askew from the full truth of the Catholic faith. He was a Methodist minister who participated in countless ecumenical gatherings. I do not remember him speaking of any time that a Catholic priest or Catholic for that matter ever tried to lead him to the true faith, and certainly until I walked in a Catholic Church and asked for myself, no Catholic ever tried to lead ME to the truth in the Catholic faith…and I grew up in an Italian/Irish community! But ecumenism! Oh, ecumenism!!

          What did any of us in the lostness of Protestantism have to say about the Catholic Church and ecumenism and to what avail?

          “Oh, they are coming around” is the gist of it. The Catholic Church: utterly devoid of a prophetic voice was and still is seen as pathetically wrong, abominably mistaken, eternally confused…but…”coming around”.

          “Coming around” to what?

          To Protestant heresy and apostasy, that’s what.

          Church wreckers!! What godlessness would cause a “Catholic” to wreck his own Church? And they couldn’t even just do it doctrinally…they had to take sledge hammers and crowbars to the buildings themselves!

          And that is what ecumenism is all about, 100% lock-stock-and-barrel; The destruction of the Catholic faith and the promotion of heresy and apostasy of the Catholic faith in order to “get along” with heretics and apostates and Muslims and Jews and Hindus.

          And this Pope, the Pope of “don’t convert”, the Pope of “it is grave sin to try to convert another”, the Pope of total HOGWASH we have today is the poster child for all of it.

          And our bishops stand by and celebrate the heresy, apostasy, syncretism and wholesale flight from the teachings of the One, True Catholic and Apostolic Church of Christ.

          God help the Catholic Church.

          • You write painful truths. It is fascinating to see this reality observed from someone who knew from another perspective.
            If only those who need to read them were reading them.

          • I cannot but thank you for your comments. It reminds me of a conversation I had MANY (20+/-?) years ago with a friend, who has since disappeared, not to be found. She was brought up a Baptist, and was searching for The Truth. She went to a, “Catholic” (in name only!) priest, who told her, don’t worry about it; same destination; different road (Baptist) DRIVEL!!! So, she went elsewhere…

            When I met her she was, and had been for a number of years, a muslim.

            I was not where I am now in my faith, but I still pray for her, and TRY to pray for that, “priest”

          • Alas, my Catholic sister-in-law at age 16 she and her mom went to her parish priest and asked if she could go hang out at the Protestant “youth group”. They were told, of course, yes. and there she stayed.

            I am not a sedevacantist but I sure understand why they say what they say.

            For myself, I am, I guess, far more grievous a Catholic. I just believe we have had a stretch of REALLY horrible yet valid Popes and leaders.

          • Oh, no, of course not.

            When I was freshly confirmed we had a long and very thorough email correspondence about the teachings of the Church. She very respectfully asked me questions. I answered them and she replied “Yes, that is exactly what I was taught…but I believe…”

            See, the weed seed that the priest planted matured and brought forth fruit. “Believe what you want” was more or less his guidance. And she does. She is a great person but she is no longer a Catholic. She’s connected to some Protestant sect.

            From what I can tell, old time Catholic priests often relied on simple “force of authority” to try to compel compliance, often lacking the “whys and wherefores”. When V2 came around, many breathed a sigh of relief and gave up, becoming lenient to the point of granting total license.

            What should have been happening was true, loving catechesis. I see this in my FSSP priests. Fathers stand at the ambo and TEACH WHY we believe what we believe and WHY the Church has always taught this and that. Not “Do it because we say so” but “Do it because God loves you…but do not fool yourself; God is not mocked. You will reap what you sow.” The Four Last Things are taught.

            No wonder the place is busting at the seams, and busting from cradle Catholics AND converts!!! They tell us the truth; the joys AND demands of the Gospel {Read CCC 1697}.

            So many are hungry and the Holy Ghost draws them to Christ our Lord! If the Pope only got it. May we soon get a Pope who does!

          • I’m so sorry to hear that. Keep praying for her. That is one reason why I REALLY love They, “…TEACH WHY we believe what we believe and WHY the Church has always taught this and that.” I am a cradle Catholic, and I thank God, literally, for my mother, but, that being said, I’ve learned more from than in all my previous years, but considering I was born in ’55, that’s not surprising!

            Another new website I’ve discovered is, which is the website for St Paul Street Evangelization. Seems very good, and helpful. You never know!

      • Do you have an SSPX chapel nearby? You can nurture and grow your Faith there. There is no doubt about the Sacraments, and no heresy from the pulpit.

        • Yes, but I will not go there until they get their status worked out with the Church. There are lots of SSPX folks around our parts.

          I don’t need to anyhow as I am registered with a FSSP parish and LOVE it. It’s a 1 1/2 hour drive but worth it. It’s not far from the SSPX as a matter of fact. I praise God every day for the priests and their devotion to our Lord and Savior and to His teaching in the Church.

          I led my whole family to the Catholic faith but alas, my kids are stuck in a parish that reeks of the smell of death. It’s right close by. The priest does his best but he communes Freemasons and allows a mind-bogglingly uneducated deacon to give vapid and mildly pro-homosexual homilies. As so often is the case, I truly believe this priest is a good man who lacks the formation that, say, the FSSP guys do. Let’s face it, the “culture” of Ordinary Form Catholicism doesn’t empower him or encourage him to speak the truth and when he does it’s almost as if he is speaking in spite of his formation and the ethos of the Church than because of it.

          Having grown up in United Methodism and having a brother who is an Episcopalian priest, I’ve seen all this rot before.

          One of the last things my Dad said to me before he died after almost 50 years of service was “If I had to do it all over again, I wouldn’t have been ordained in the UMC”. Same exact issues handled the same exact way that the Catholic Church prelates handle them; with lies, fraud and make-believe. Except Methodism doesn’t have the full truth to tell, and we do. So they may have a log in their eye. We have the whole flippin forest jammed in both of ours.

          I was never able to introduce my Dad to the Catholic faith as he was in later states of dementia {and Mom had died a few years before} when we began our RCIA training. I pray for him every day. He died outside the Church but I pray for him anyway. It was Mom and Dad’s teaching on morality and the Bible that pointed me in the direction of the Catholic faith though they didn’t know it.

          That he spent his entire life in a Catholic area back east and was never evangelized because of the horrifically, religiously indifferent actions and teachings of guys like John Paul 2 and Benedict and the current occupant of the Vatican makes my blood boil. We’re all the same, guys!! All religions point to the good! LIES.




          • Don’t know if you know about, but I think you’d like them. You talk just like them!!! They’re a breath of fresh air!!!

          • RTHEVR, Thanks for sharing this.

            I enjoyed reading about your experiences, you convey the gratitude and passion for the faith and you do not see it as a burden or obligation.

  3. I should just like to add that when I was growing up. prior to Vatican II, an informed “Conscience,” ( con – scientia, “with knowledge” ) was construed thus: “Is what I have done, what I am doing, or what I plan on doing licit according to, or in conformity with, the perennial teachings of the Roman Catholic Church, (as best known to me).” The question then arises whether the present pontiff or the four cardinals are in conformity with the above definition. Their, or my, subjective opinions are irrelevant. Contrary to modernist theology, the self revelation of God’s will is not necessarily present to each and every individual, but held in trust by His divinely instituted Church

  4. We still need definitive church teachings….based on the law of God….individual conscience forming is fine and one’s duty, but the church is obligated to lead and teach with clarity. We do not have that with AL. AND “pastoral accompaniment” is “all over the place”. You have good, holy priests being told by their bishops to give the Holy Eucharist to divorced and remarried members of their church. And other dioceses are telling their priests not to give the Holy Eucharist to the divorced and remarried unless they are living as sister and brother. We, the laity, are called not only to be witnesses but defenders of His Church, of His Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity….We are called to repair for the sacrileges being done to the Eucharist. On this feast day of Saint Nicholas, let us pray to this most holy defender of Christ for the zeal he possessed when confronting the heretics of his day……And, by the way, we DO HAVE THE INTERNET AND WE DO have access to the contradictions(errors) being made by the Pope and his minions… our responsibility is MORE before the throne of God……we also had modern day communications systems with St. John Paul II and Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI…….and we didn’t witness the confusions or heretical stances that we are witnessing with Pope Francis…..BE FAITHFUL…..BUT BE ATTENTIVE and yes……..PRAY THAT OUR CHURCH REMAINS…..ONE…HOLY…CATHOLIC….AND APOSTOLIC

  5. We know who you are – you league of devils in the Vatican who have blasphemed the Word of The Lord our God and show your mouthpiece in the temple like he were some kind of god. You are nothing but mere husks of men who have allowed yourselves to be deceived and given over to the depravities of he who is evil.

    We in New Zealand, God’s own country, await you in battle. We are well prepared. We will defeat you and we will eat you alive.

  6. It’s far, far too late in the game to approvingly quote Vatican II, Joseph Ratzinger and Karl Rahner.

    Sorry, but you lost me, and I can’t help but be suspicious of you.

    Too many souls have been lost.

    Do you not see the almost universal apostasy unfolding before your eyes? Or perhaps being a theologian trained in post Vatican II educational institutions blinds you to the reality that many others can plainly see.

    If you are a student of Rahner or Ratzinger, then I guess such a massive apostasy is no big deal to you, because everyone is fine.

    Has 1P5 taken a wrong turn here? What’s going on?

      • Is that meant to be a personal attack?? (That’s a joke, son.)

        If Rahner said it, I’d double check it.

        I’d also investigate what he subjectively meant when he used the word “blue”.

        I would not quote anything he said if I was a writer of Catholic material.

          • Actually, that’s Cdl Ratzinger with Lutheran bishop (that’s what they call them) Maria Jepson, not Karl Rahner.

            P.S. The tie-wearing custom is very offputting to me, too. But it should be noted that it had already been a custom in Germany universities for priest academics to wear a suit and tie. It predated the Council by some decades. Which is another way of saying that if this was a symptom of an alarming development, it’s a symptom that goes back well before the Second Vatican Council. Which, to be sure, some these of theological currents did.

          • Yes, that is correct. It is Ratzinger praying in public with a heretic, not a “Catholic theologian” like Rahner.

            I know I’m not very funny, but I still can’t resist giving it a shot every now and then. You never know…

          • Like Francis standing shoulder to shoulder with the lesbo-Lutheran sexual deviants and calling for “full communion” all the while.

          • Exactly.

            Like Francis.

            Francis has followed his predecessors in many things, and broken new ground in other places.

          • I asked a modernist theologian about this earlier this year. He is the head of the Ecumenical propaganda department in the local diocese.

            I asked him if he had ever read Mortalium Animos. He had, so he said, and seriously claimed that Mortalium Animos only represented the Church’s thinking in 1928. The Church was still in reactionary mode because of the protestant reformation!

            The change in attitude at the Second Vatican Council, he said, was a development – the fruit of the Church’s “deeper reflection” on the matter. A complete about-face, a 180 degree change, a mere 40 years later. I am not making this up.

          • The undercurrents were there before Pope Pius X, but the Church supressed and punished heretics. At the Council, the way was opened for them to come into the light with no punishments or supression.

            All the baptised are apparently now members of the Church, to greater or lesser degrees of “communion”, and the profession of the true Faith, which Pius XII taught was necessary for membership in the Church, was left behind and forgotten. Now the Church (the Newchurch) consists of Catholics and baptised heretics.

          • Ah, I recall with deep – and I mean deep – cringing
            when I lead the music at my parish after I returned to the Catholic Church in 1980 – guitar strung around my neck, a half dozen of us attempting to lead the congregation with our fractured Peter, Paul and Mary / Pete Seeger folk song hymns: “See the Church assembled here …” There IS a special place in purgatory (or worse? :^)) for what we innocently inflicted on that poor congregation. Knowing what an eejit I was in my salad days, I cannot judge Fr. Ratzinger for mis-adventures in his salad days.

        • Use your noggin, old-timer.

          People from across the theological spectrum are reaching the same conclusions about Francis. Citing their own luminaries, sure. But coming to a consensus with people they would never otherwise agree with.

          I’d rather build a broad coalition on this issue than be right all alone in a corner. This was a worthwhile contribution, despite the incongruity of certain individuals being quoted favorably in these pages.

          • As awful as this is, and especially as it gets worse and crazier, Bergoglio serves to force all eyes onto the rot that has been festering for so long. My guess is that is in part why, for example example, Burke is taking it seemingly so slowly – like he’s waiting for reinforcements to rally – in the same way you are finding allies.

        • There are certain traditionalist outlets that essentially refuse to cite any authority that is not pre-conciliar – unless it’s something that (say) Archbp.Lefebvre or Msgr Gherardini might have said. There is nothing wrong with that – though it may limit your audience to the already like-minded.

          Karl Rahner is by many measures the most important Catholic theologian of the 20th century. Notice I said “important, ” not “greatest.” (You will have to go to Wiltgen for that gloss.) One’s efforts can be baleful and even disastrous and yet be “important,” and it is difficult to discern any other figure who was more responsible for the revolutionary changes in speculative theology that commenced mid-century (or their dire pastoral consequences). And his fingerprints are all over Gaudium et Spes. And yet even Rahner was dismayed by GES’s inadequate treatment of the doctrine of sin, and thin eschatology. And noting *that* can actually help underline any adversarial critique of Gaudium et Spes – “I mean, if even *Rahner* thought it was too irenic….”

          In the same way these sources serve a value here of sorts to a wider audience, and seeking a wider audience for tradition is (as I understand it) the different approach that 1P5 is attempt to execute. And there’s another, concomitant consideration: Citing such progressive conciliar and post-conciliar sources against the dangers of excessive papalism helps hammer home the astounding about-face which liberal prelates like Msgr Pinto have executed. It makes them look hypocritically partisan. Yesterday it was all “collegiality” with such men; today, they’re all suddenly fire-breathing ultramontanists. Reading such citations might not get Msgr Pinto to walk back his rhetoric, but it will highlight for all other observers just how d***** awkward his ecclesiological stance now is.

        • ‘If Rahner said it, I’d double check it.’ – That’s the problem with dodgy theologians, once you know their track record suspicion kicks in on everything they say. But as I stated on another comment, he did also say things in line with Tradition.

          • It’s a cheap ploy to win your confidence. These apostates don’t believe in Divine revelation and use any trick to deceive others.

            May they either convert to Catholicism or burn.

    • At some point in the future (maybe in 100 years time, who knows except God) Vatican II will be revised I reckon. I believe one of the traditional bishops did ask for a new syllabus of errors which would basically correct the errors of Vatican II. So we may see in the future Vatican 2.1, I hope so. As to whether 1P5 has taken a wrong turn… no I don’t think so. Rahner and GES were quoted positively in line with Church Tradition to make a point that would irritate any progressive!

      • You might be thinking of Bishop Athanasius Schneider, who gave a talk in Rome in 2010 calling for a new syllabus of errors from the aftermath of Vatican II, not Vatican II itself.

  7. “Pinto seems to be a representative of an unconditional obedience and of the disquieting papalism inherently connected with it.”

    Unfortunately he was given poor example by ex-pope Benedict. Did he not promise “unconditional obedience” to his successor? To give unconditional obedience to any human being is to sell your soul – it is to commit a grave act of idolatry. Only God has the right to demand unconditional obedience from us and when we give that to a mere man we put him in God’s place – we allow him to usurp God,

    I do wonder sometimes whether this whole farce of a papacy is being visited on the Church as punishment for papalotry.

  8. Read some comments already and was also surprised to see GES and Rahner quoted positively, doesn’t often happen on traddy websites. Personally can’t see a problem as long as the words support Catholic teaching. In fact, isn’t that what Cardinal Burke said about AL? Take only those parts of it that are in line with Tradition. Another thing, it’s true that before the age of digital mass media people didn’t know every word that came out of a Pope’s mouth, so yes, we don’t have to take heed of everything PF says. But even when he does teach us in an official capacity we have the benchmark of Tradition and Scripture to measure PF’s words. Interesting that St Joan didn’t know of the two competing Popes, wish our two Popes would compete!!

    • But the Church doesn’t work like that.

      What would be the point of the Papacy and the Magisterium if we only listen, learn and obey when they tell us what we already know, and if we think it doesn’t, then we declare it not magisterial?

      A document is not magisterial because it tells us what the Church has always taught. It is magisterial because the one giving the teaching is the rule of faith. Put Francis (or Benedict, JPII or Paul VI) into that equation and see how far you get!

  9. It is remarkable that the reservations the modernists always had about the Papacy are suddenly gone after one of them has climbed the throne of St. Peter. At once they are more papalist than traditionalists and conservatives in the Church ever were. They are the ultramontanists of our time.

    Happily, it won’t last. Francis causes only chaos and confusion, and at some point in the future the tables will be turned on him.

  10. I would not quote anything he said if I was a writer of Catholic material“.

    Sometimes even devils, or sinners, can say something which is true. Don’t forget, e.g., what Caiaphas said other priests about Our Lord: “Quia expedit unum hominem mori pro populo“. And what devils confess during exorcisms. Therefore, even Rahner or Vatican II can tell – per accidens – something true.

    • I don’t deny your point, but I stand by mine: “I would not quote anything he said if I was a writer of Catholic material”.

      It lends tacit approval of whom none at all is due.

      • And I agree with you, completely. It’s the same reason I would never quote Vatican II, even when it says something true. In my blog ( I also wrote that – especially for conservative Cardinals and Prelates – would be better to avoid to quote that Council, because it’s the first cause and the source of all errors and doctrinal deviations in the Church. Bergolleus in Concilio latet, Concilium in Bergolleo patet.

      • I agree with you, Mike.
        And I would not even quote any document of Vatican II, as unfortunately many Prelates use to do, thinking that this captatio benevolentiae should protect them to be considered as extremists or fundamentalists.
        As i wrote in my blog, Bergolleus in Concilio latet, Concilium in Bergolleo patet. Every single word of the lansquenet is perfectly consistent with the spirit and the soul of Vatican II.

  11. The Pinto argument is ridiculous on it’s face. Regarding the matter at issue we can only obey the Pope when he obeys Christ. Everyday that goes by Pope Francis loses credibility as he refuses to accept the truth. My guess if this were the 15th century our dear Pope, unable to control his maliciousness, would have the four Cardinals burned at the stake. Let us pray for Pope Francis that he seeks meekness.

  12. Cardinal Burke has said a “formal correction” might be in order. Pope Francis will not communicate! Issue the “formal correction” NOW!

  13. Notice how the modernists demand unconditional obedience. I got much practice against this having lived in a diocese with a heretical bishop. Obey authority -only- when they are obedient to doctrine. No ambiguity allowed.

  14. The “primacy of conscience” is a double-edged sword: it can also be used (falsely) to justify sin, all appeals to the “law of God written in the human heart” notwithstanding, such as in Amoris Laetitia 300-305.

    The relationship, the delicate balance, the true reciprocity between individual conscience and the moral law needs always to be guarded and preserved in truth and with God’s grace. It can easily degenerate into a tense and conflicting relationship–with either side claiming priority. Who shall explicate the moral law? Who shall dare challenge the priority of individual conscience?

    St John Paul II gave us objective principles by which we can guard the integrity of the moral law in Veritatis Splendour, as he also highlights in the same encyclical the unity of conscience and the moral law. The supreme way to preserve this unity and harmony of the conscience and the moral law is to have a Shepherd of Jesus Christ who embodies these truths, embodies the form of the Gospel, and “feeds the sheep” accordingly. May God send him speedily.

  15. “…however, the Second Vatican Council itself shall speak: “In the depths of his conscience, man detects a law which he does not impose upon himself, but which holds him to obedience. Always summoning him to love good and avoid evil, the voice of conscience, when necessary, speaks to his heart: do this, shun that. For man has in his heart a law written by God Himself; to obey it is the very dignity of man; according to it he will be judged.”

    The quiet and sincere heart can listen to the Voice of Good. We Catholics have a Baptism which changed the dismal act of original sin into a New Nature. Our Baptism is inherently alive as true nature within each of us and we have the power through prayer to access Its Reality in a very comfortable relationship. Our New Nature has a guiding history that is clearly written by Apostles of God when Jesus spoke in a human body for our benefit. Myriads of souls have followed these Words for millennia and are now the victors in Heaven. Whomever would desire less than a real relationship with Jesus Truth needs to be prayed for and pitied. The conscience has its own ears, but man’s will still must choose. Who would want less than what Jesus teaches? The pope could have real happy moments with his flock but he is not choosing to do so. For me and mine, we choose to serve the Lord Jesus whom is Peace and Protection for our souls.


Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Popular on OnePeterFive

Share to...